Wednesday, October 31, 2007

It seems the anti-jihadists on the Net are getting under Al Qaeda’s skin. DEBKA reports that Osama’s jihadists are planning to launch a cyber-attack on November 11TH.

In a special Internet announcement in Arabic, picked up DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources, Osama bin Laden’s followers announced Monday, Oct. 29, the launching of Electronic Jihad. On Sunday, Nov. 11, al Qaeda’s electronic experts will start attacking Western, Jewish, Israeli, Muslim apostate and Shiite Web sites. On Day One, they will test their skills against 15 targeted sites expand the operation from day to day thereafter until hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites.

Like in the history of the Emperor’s new clothes, where he thought that he was so above criticism that he could stroll through town absolutely naked and know that no one would comment, Al Qaeda can no longer stand the pin-pricks of a ‘small minority’ of web sites who see through the naked aggression of the Islamists compared to the massive MSM and left-wing blogs that continuously spew out their Islamic appeasing, apologetic rhetoric and living up to the meaning of the term “useful idiots’.

Hollywood's Jihad Against America

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

“During World War II Hollywood churned out combat pictures and home-front melodramas with the speed and efficiency that characterized so much war-time production. Those movies reflected a consensus that it was also their purpose to promote. The best of them were more than simple propaganda, but they tended to share a sense of clarity and purpose in their narrative structure as well as in their themes.”

So wrote A.O. Scott in a New York TimesArts and Leisure feature on October 28, “A War on Every Screen: New Films Pegged to Iraq and Other Flash Points Are Awash in Ambiguity.” After presenting brief synopses of several recent and forthcoming movies about the Iraq war and terrorism – most of them, to judge by his descriptions, viciously anti-American in theme and content – Scott concludes that they are “ambiguous,” and semi-wistfully contrasts them with films produced during World War II. By “ambiguous” one can only suppose that he means they do not overtly condemn the U.S.

In that sense, they lack the “clarity and purpose” with which most World War II-era produced films were imbued.

Scott does, however, answer some of his own questions, and in the process identifies why, to him, at least, the films are “ambiguous.”

“What is missing in nearly every case is a sense of catharsis or illumination. This is hardly the fault of the filmmakers. Disorientation, ambivalence, a lack of clarity – these are surely part of the collective experience they are trying to examine. How can you bring an individual story to a satisfying conclusion when nobody has any idea what the end of the larger story will look like?”

Much the same could be said about President Bush’s Iraq policy. It is disoriented in its aims, now that it is a certainty that “democracy” will not work in a country whose citizens will continue to vote the straight Islamic ticket. It is ambivalent, measured by a purely emotional criterion. And, the policy lacks clarity, because the “insurgency” will never end if its promoters and paymasters remain untouched by American military might. That is the “larger” story whose resolution no one can as yet predict.

Although Scott’s article rambles on in search of answers, he does make an occasional true observation.

“…[T]he public may well succeed in avoiding them [the films discussed by Scott]….Public indifference…may bolster the ideologically convenient notion that Hollywood is out of touch with the American people, and also the economically convenient idea that people go to the movies to escape the problems of the world rather than to confront them.”

I do not think the idea that Hollywood is out of touch with the American people needs bolstering or that it is “convenient,” unless the term is Scott’s substitute for “logical.” Ever since the mid-1960’s Hollywood has waged a campaign of hate of the U.S. and has left few left-wing or collectivist issues untouched or un-dramatized. Nor is the idea that people go to the movies to be inspired or at least “entertained” an illogical one, either. Both ideas are true.

“What is notable about this new crop of war movies is not their earnestness or their didacticism – traits many of them undoubtedly display – but rather their determination to embrace confusion, complexity, and ambiguity.”

The new crop of movies are that way because it is their makers’ intent to leave American movie-goers confused about the issues, baffled by their “complexity,” and in doubt about any possible resolution. The ambiguity plays an insidious role. It injects doubt into the issues and into the minds of American viewers. That is their earnest, Existentialist, “didactic” method. The ambiguity is not an accident or a consequence of confusion or an attempt to avoid what Scott calls “finger-wagging” and “sloganeering.” The ambiguity is deliberate, and it is indeed the “fault” of the filmmakers.

Although much of Hollywood during World War II was under the thumb of leftists, they did not dare insult the intelligence of the American public or attack their values or patriotism by offering films that were ambiguous about the nature of the enemy or the enormity of the effort required to defeat him. They did not begin to crawl out into the light until after the war.

Today, the enemy, Islamism or Islamofascism, is not identified as an enemy, and if Islamists are hostile to the U.S., according to Hollywood, it is the fault of the U.S. To Hollywood, the Islamists can slaughter thousands, regardless of their religion or politics, and they remain innocent. They were “conditioned” by circumstances and cannot be blamed for their actions, no matter how horrendous or murderous. Only the U.S. is blameworthy, because it is a giant.

If a handful of American soldiers run amok and commit “crimes” against members of what is (in fact) an enemy population, that deserves feature length attention. If innumerable jihadists plot to detonate bombs in New York and Boston, Hollywood will not deign to dramatize it, but ask, instead: Who can blame them?

Every one of the movies Scott discusses is a multi-million dollar instance of agitprop whose purpose is not to instill or uphold moral values, but to subvert and destroy them by instilling guilt in Americans, to make them doubt the value of being Americans. If a modern war movie is not weepy, whiny, or “grieving,” then it is blatantly nihilistic.

Parenthetically, it is a measure of America’s cultural malaise that weeping, grieving and maudlin commiseration have become the especial foci of news reportage, regardless of the tragedy or catastrophe. “Grief” and “suffering” rank just behind “sacrifice” and “selflessness” as touchstones of moral worth. I date the beginning of this sordid element of national self-pitying back to October 1983, when terrorists killed over two hundred Marines and other U.S. servicemen in their Beirut barracks, an assault that President Ronald Reagan failed to answer. As the stream of flag-draped coffins arrived in the U.S., the news media embarked on an orgy of “grief” and “doubt.” Did any one call for retaliation against the responsible terrorist groups or the state that sponsored them and demand that Reagan take action? I don’t recall.

Scott comes close to grasping the connection between the movies whose “ambiguous” purposes he ponders and the nature of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

“We have been told from the start, by both the administration and its critics, that this will be a long, complicated, episodic fight. And so attempts to make sense of it piecemeal and in medias res, in discrete narratives with beginnings and ends, are likely to feel incomplete and unsatisfying.”

He comes close, and might have understood the nature of the conflicts, were he not also a pawn of the filmmakers’ purposes, which is to inculcate doubt, confusion, and disgust. Were he able to delve into more fundamental issues, he might have asked the questions:

Are we there to ensure that no Islamic state ever attacks America again? And if we are, what is the best means of accomplishing that end? Or are we there motivated by some Wilsonian notion of spreading “democracy” as a moral duty, to indulge in what Progressive writer Herbert Croly called the “tonic of a moral adventure”? Is there a vital connection between Bush’s Christian policy of warfighting and why the U.S. will continue to expend blood and treasure in a futile campaign to win the “hearts and minds” of a people who prefer to adhere to a Dark Age morality? Is a code of self-sacrifice one of life or of death?

Finally, he might have asked: If Hollywood had turned out these kinds of movies during World War II, might not the filmmakers have been boycotted by the public, or charged with treason, or, at the very least, tarred and feathered and run out of town?

I do not plan to see any of the movies discussed by A.O. Scott in his article. I know what they are about just by watching the morning newscasts for free. My kinds of war movies are the 1939 Four Feathers, and Glory, Hamburger Hill, Gunga Din, Hell is for Heroes, and many others that, among other things, not the least of which is their cleaner, unambiguous esthetics, inspire me to fight my own battles.

March 11th bombings

The first thing I have to say is that I am perplexed, really surprised by the result. And that's why I'm surprised Zapatero is so happy about the sentence (or so he has said).

Three persons were considered as "masterminds" of the attacks: Mohammed the Egiptian (acquitted entirely), Youssef Belhadj (12 years for belonging to terrorist gang) and Hassan el Haski (15 years for being leader of a terrorist gang). None of them is considered to have taken part in the bombings.

Then Spanish schizophrenic and minor criminal Trashorras is considered as someone whose cooperation was needed for the bombings and is condemned to nearly 40.000 years in prison. Strickinly, he is, then, considered as an author of the bombings, according to Spanish penal code.

Only Jamal Zougam and Otman el Gnaoui are considered as "Jihadi" authors of the massacre and are condemned to the same amount of years as Trashorras.

Another stricking thing: Trashorras cousin's Toro, who was accused of being a police collaborator, has been acquitted, when it was nearly considered as the "clever" of the family and with direct implication in the traffic of explosives.

ETA, the Iraqi war and Bin Laden are not related with the bombings. But the sentence says:

Among the proved facts, the resolution underlines that these groups, "using the violence in any of its sides, pretend to destroy democratic regimes and eliminate the Christian-Western culture to substitute them with an Islamic State under the empire of the Islamic Law in its more radical, extreme and minoritary interpretation".

Well, the theory can be more or less well summarised. But how can we consider this as a Jihadi attack (according only to the sentence), when one out of three authors is non-Muslim, schizofrenic and haschich consumer with no relation with Jihadi networks and the three more important guys are acquitted of the massacre?

The rest of the people condemned are not authors nor collaborators of the massacre. They are condemned of belonging to terrorist Jihadi networks with no connection with the bombings, and of other minor crimes (falsification of public documents or having explosives).

It's curious to underline that, while Socialist Zapatero and Communist Llamazares have praised the sentence, the victims are all not very happy with it. The Spanish "Cindy Sheehan", Pilar Manjón, who has blamed directly Aznar and Bush of the bombings and has said the victims were killed because they were "workers" and not rich people "who go on their cars to work", has said she is appealing the sentence. Others have considered it to be very soft with the criminals.

But there are some problems: there is no data as to what the explosive was (there were no proofs...). Nothing about who was the leader. Nor even about who inspired the bombings. And only three people of all who were initially charged with the bombings did everything.

I don't think this sentence has solutioned anything. For me it has complicated it even more.

(Just in case: Schizophrenia, from the Greek roots schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind"), is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction. Do you really believe a man like that can be an author of a planned massacre like this? I do not).

Storm Track Intimidation: Muslim Prisoners Sue Over Ham

I would not like themhere or there.I would not like themanywhere.I do not likegreen eggs and ham.

My apologies to Dr. Seuss but Sam-I-Am isn’t the only one who doesn’t like ham.In fact certain parties in Britain are considering suing the government over it.

For some reason incarcerated criminals in the West feel they are entitled so certain privileges and what was once a punishment is more like an alternative lifestyle threes day. Muslims are quick to take advantage of the bleeding hearts who feel prisoners are being unduly treated (what about their victims? Never mind). Combine that heart disease with the mental disease of multiculturalism and you have Muslim prisoners demanding their rights.

British School Orders Students And Teachers To Dress Like Muslims For A Day

Kids at the 257-pupil primary have also been told to don ethnic garb even though most are Christians.

The morning assembly will be open to all parents – but dads are BARRED from a women-only party in the afternoon because Muslim husbands object to wives mixing with other men.

Just two members of staff – a part-time teacher and a teaching assistant – are Muslim.

Yesterday a relative of one of the 39 others said: “Staff have got to go along with it – or let’s face it, they would be branded racist.

“Who would put their job on the line? They have been told they have to embrace the day to show their diversity. But they are not all happy.”

The day aims to belatedly mark Eid, the end of Ramadan.

Sally Bloomer, head of Rufford primary school in Lye, West Midlands, insisted: “I have not heard of any complaints.

“It’s all part of a diversity project to promote multi-culturalism.”

Is it time for civil disobedience? Do we get the government we deserve? If the government does not provide for the defense of its people, if the government does not provide for the people to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then what is the answer?

... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Houston School To Use IBA As A Teaching Tool

What?

Yeah, I'm just bullshitting you. But, the reality is not any more shocking. The truth is, they are using a textbook which spends three whole chapters on Islam (including an entire chapter on "the Prophet Mohammed") while spending mere paragraphs on the world's other major religions.

The parents of children at Houston Elementary School plan to complain to the school board about concerns they have with a seventh-grade history textbook, which they feel pays an undue amount of attention to the teachings of Islam.

When Jim Self asked his son last week what he was learning in school, he was surprised to hear his 12-year-old boy say that he was learning about the Prophet Muhammad.

That night Jim Self and his wife, Korina, flipped through their son's textbook, "History Alive!: The Medieval World and Beyond," and found at least three chapters dedicated to the Islamic faith, including an entire chapter dedicated to the Prophet Muhammad.

Since then, the couple has started a campaign to remove the textbook from their child's classroom. The book is used in classrooms throughout the district.

"I don't think we would have an issue about it if (it wasn't so) in-depth," said Jim Self, who fought in Iraq as a Marine from 2003 to 2004.

Among the Selfs' concerns about the textbook is its definition of the word "jihad," which is described in the book as "the human struggle to overcome difficulties and do things that would be pleasing to God."

The Selfs said the textbook mentioned Jesus only twice, and other major religions were only given a paragraph of explanation.

One of the Selfs' biggest concerns, though, is that such detailed explanation of Islam is a violation of the separation of church and state. "If he was in college and he was studying world religions, fine," Jim Self said.

"We're just regular people," Jim Self said.

The Selfs don't have an issue with their son learning about other cultures, but said that each culture should be represented equally.

"They want to take the Ten Commandments off the steps of the Supreme Court, but you're going to teach my 12-year-old son how to pray?" Jim Self asked.

In fact, the Selfs' asked that their son not be named to avoid unwanted repercussions.

But that didn't stop them from telling Houston Elementary's administration that their son will not be participating in history class, a request with which the school has complied.

Ask yourself, why has the school complied with the Self's request. The kid is in Elementary School. This is no elective class. This is history.

The reason the school has complied is

BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG

AND THEY ARE DOING IT ANYWAY!

The local school administrators all need to lose their jobs, or the school needs to be defunded. This is a travesty.

In the future, if our governments do not get themselves calibrated on issues like this, we will be removing government officials from their offices by force.

Guess Who Europe Is Subsidizing?

The European Union and its member countries have been subsidizing various opponents of Israel for many years. A study, just published by the Dutch Center for Documentation and Information on Israel contains perhaps the most detailed investigation of one such case.

A group called United Civilians for Peace is a joint venture of five Dutch NGOs. Fifty to 90% of their budgets are funded by the Dutch government and the European Union. A sixth partner left UCP in view of its extreme anti-Israeli activities.

UCP - among other things - publishes research about "Dutch economic links in support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and/or Syrian territories."

Journalist Joost de Haas, writing in the Dutch Telegraaf summed up the 50-plus page report by the Dutch Center for Documentation saying: "A peace organization financed with taxpayers money is guided by the Palestinian terror organization Hamas and supports the Iranian atom bomb."

The EU and the Dutch government thus indirectly finance Dutch opponents of Israel.

This story is the tip of a European iceberg of financial support for anti-Israeli bodies. NGO Monitor has exposed various state agencies which finance extreme anti-Israeli organizations. In an article in the Swiss daily Le Temps, Gerald Steinberg, who heads NGO Monitor cited examples of such support by the Swiss Agency for Development & Cooperation.

A few months ago the Jewish Chronicle wrote that Israeli diplomats intended to raise claims with the Irish government that its Irish Aid Department was financing anti-Israeli NGOs some of which promote the demonization of Israel and boycott actions. The Swedish International Development Agency is also involved in financing extreme anti-Israeli groups.

IN AN interview with Rijk van Dam, a former Dutch member of the European Parliament he told me that the government of Finland had contributed millions of Euros to pay for Palestinian textbooks which promote the hate of Israel.

In 2004 Wall Street Journal op-ed writer Daniel Schwammenthal detailed how difficult it was to obtain information on the funding of the PLO by European governments. This, while the latter claimed their activities were transparent.

Earlier this year the Israeli government criticized the British embassy in Tel Aviv for contributing funds to a study on the security barrier and its impact on the Palestinians. A Foreign Ministry source said: "It is interference by Britain in an internal Israeli matter. How would they react in London if our embassy was to fund a British research organization that is trying to promote an agenda critical [of their government]. This is not acceptable in international relations."

AND THEN there is the abuse by the Palestinian Authority of part of the many billions of Euros it gets in funding from the EU. Van Dam says: "There is no doubt that a substantial portion of European funding has served purposes such as corruption and terrorism."

He added that at a meeting in the European Parliament the then Palestinian finance minister [and now Prime Minister Salam Fayad] was asked how European money was spent. He replied that he did not know, not a penny was left, and it had all gone to the pockets of fat cats.

Van Dam also explained how difficult it was to have an inquiry started into this abuse of European funding and how powerful sources in the EU tried to abort it. Ultimately its findings were not conclusive.

The former Israeli ambassador at the EU, Efraim Halevy, told me a revealing story. The EU was paying the Palestinian Authority in a less than straightforward way and channeling part of their funds semi-legally. "Some money went directly into Yasser Arafat's bank accounts. Once I was meeting the [then EU Commission vice president] Manuel Marin when he got a call from the German foreign minister who complained that $25 million, which Arafat got as 'special emergency funding,' had been transferred to the wrong account. It went into the general account and should have gone into his private one.

"The commissioner asked the minister for a few minutes' pause and then turned to me and politely asked me to excuse him because he had to attend to the matter at hand. I left, of course, but not before my host had unburdened himself and had expressed his exasperation at the way he was being forced to cooperate in these matters."This is a very limited selection of facts concerning an issue of major importance. One can only wonder why the Israeli government does not systematically expose this European misbehavior.

• Investigators say another blonde girl is found in Morocco• Family believe Maddy is alive in 'similar situation'

Private investigators searching for Madeleine McCann found a blonde girl who had been kidnapped by a Moroccan family, it was claimed yesterday.

The discovery will give new hope to Kate and Gerry that their daughter is still alive and in a "similar situation".

Sources inside Spanish detective agency Metodo 3, which has been hired by the McCanns, said Interpol is investigating the discovery of the blonde girl living in the Rif mountains — the area where they are searching for Madeleine.

An insider said: "She was not Madeleine but she was an English speaker, possibly an American."

The boss of Metodo 3 said he believed Madeleine was abducted by a care worker on the instruction of a paedophile gang who stole the child to order.

He believes another girl matching Madeleine's description, who has been spotted with a woman aged about 60 in the Rif mountains by 10 different people, could well be the four-year-old who went missing from the Algarve on 3 May.

Francisco Marco, Metodo 3's director-general, said: "My own feeling is that this woman is some sort of carer who is working on behalf of other people. We can't be certain it's Madeleine but several unconnected people have told our informers of the same girl with the same woman.

"The only difference is that she has slightly shorter hair than Madeleine had when she disappeared. Everything else matches.

"They've been seen over a wide area but always within the confines of the Rif mountains."

Joe Kaufman is a friend of this blog, and of my radio show, which he has appeared on. The Islamofascists at Islamic Circle of North America are attempting to sue him into submission. Instead, they need to be removed from our country, because they clearly do not understand the meaning of Freedom of Speech/Conscience.

On October 14, 2007 Joe Kaufman, a chairman of American Against Hate, organized a protest against the Islamic Circle of North America. ICNA has well documented ties to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood and should really be called the ISLAMIST Circle of North America, especially, since it openly advocates for establishment of Sharia in the United States.During the protest, Mr. Kaufman was served with temporary restraining order filed by Islamic Society of Arlington, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Islamic Association of Tarrant County, Islamic Center of Irving, and Muslim American Society of Dallas. The TRO restraints Joe Kaufman from the following:- Threatening Plaintiffs in person, by telephone, or in writing to take unlawful action against any person, intending by this action to annoy or alarm Plaintiffs.- Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' associates or members. - Threatening Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' associates or members with imminent bodily injury.- Inciting violence against Plaintiffs, their members or associates.The Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Kaufman "operates a website ... that tries to foment hate and anger against law abiding United States citizens who practice their religion (Islam) freely as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. ... He wishes to stir up anger, resentment, bias, and hatred of peaceful, law abiding citizens, solely because of their religion. To this end, Defendant Kaufman organizes protests of all things Islamic, attempting to paint them in one broad swath as being allied with Hamas, Al Qaeda, and terrorists. ... To this end, Defendant has painted the Plaintiffs as terrorists."Several members of Muslims Against Sharia went through multiple statements posted on Mr. Kaufman's website, www.AmericansAgainstHate.org. We have not found a single instance of Islam-bashing or Muslim-bashing that the Plaintiffs are complaining about. However, we found plenty of information that link ICNA and Muslim American Society (MAS) to Islamist groups both at home and abroad.This is a despicable act of American Islamist establishment (which IS associated with terrorists) to quash any attempt to unmask its extremist agenda. Muslims Against Sharia call on every American Muslim to condemn Islamism in general and Plaintiffs in particular and voice their support for Mr. Kaufman.

Storm Track Appeasement: Now the ACLU is Making State Policy

It’s enough that the American Criminal Liberties Union is trying to bring down our Judeo-Christian culture by attacking anyone with crosses or the word God in it and defending the rights of pedophiles and child rapists, now they think they can make state policy.

Why Sharia Is An Evil Abomination: These Reasons Go To Eleven

Yes, that's right. We couldn't limit ourselves to a "top ten" reasons why Sharia is evil. We had to go all the way to eleven. From Larry Houle or www.godofreason.com (with thanks to Personal Rep):

... the top eleven reasons why Sharia or Islamic law is EVIL for all societies.

11. SHARIA LAW AND SLAVERYIslam's Black Slaves notes: "the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters." Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased. The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers. Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery. A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner. Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes.

One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery. The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad. Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid. As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year old, and having concubines - slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition. Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

THE RIGHTS OF SLAVES UNDER ISLAM

According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

a) Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves - Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.b) Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God - Sura 16:77c) According to Islamic Tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.d) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.e) Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!f) It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.g) According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.h) According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.i) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. - Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.j) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. - Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day. Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call 'jihad', partly for booty, part for the purpose of taking slaves. As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam's theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbor facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.

WHO CAN BE MADE SLAVES UNDER ISLAM?

1) Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.2) Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves3) Like #1, Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves. They were forced to go all the way back to Damascus.4) Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the "protection" tax. This paying for 'protection' was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol. In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90â€”91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774â€”6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.In 2004, Rania alâ€”Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling threeâ€”fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Azâ€”Zubair Alâ€”Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

'It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revengeâ€”physical eye for physical eye.In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé¥® In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.The Quran says:5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to reâ€”impose the old law of retaliationâ€”literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.This punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here. The Quran says:5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have doneâ€”a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years. In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

AI has recorded thirtyâ€”three amputations and nine crossâ€”amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says:5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33â€”34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108â€”113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy. In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.' These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .

'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447). This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and sonâ€”inâ€”law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.Fornication:In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. The Quran says:24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here. According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eightyâ€”five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

Adultery:In December 2004, Amnesty International reports: An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed coâ€”defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death. This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death: And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. alâ€”Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for nonâ€”Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.Here are the classical legal rulings. First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597â€”98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger;(2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat';(3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it';(4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent';(5) reviling the religion of Islam;(6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;(7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.

'It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head. The nonâ€”Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)â€”(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;(2) conceal spies of hostile forces;(3) lead a Muslim away from Islam;(4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speechâ€”even repulsive speechâ€”and freedom of religion or conscience. Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

]This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings. See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11â€”12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death. Apostates should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed. And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventyâ€”four raids, expeditions, or fullâ€”scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews. Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow? What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture.(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and sonâ€”inâ€”law, did this.(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.(4) Old men and monks could be killed.(5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.(6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a nonâ€”Muslim.(7) Civilian property may be confiscated.(8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.(9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.(10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.(11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.Therefore, Islam is violentâ€”unjustly and aggressively.

Conclusion

The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries.

CIA beams new march tunes into Iran, Dick Durbin condemns

Laura Bush Dons The Abaya

First, we have this photo posted by Reliapundit at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS and by others elsewhere, showing First Lady Laura Bush sitting between two black sacks:

Little consolation, of course, but at least our First Lady wasn't wearing the abaya.

Um, not exactly.

I started clicking links at Foehammer's Anvil and found that Laura Bush did indeed done the abaya. Photo from the White House web site, via this posting by Debbie Schlussel:

Debbie Schlussel also found the following at USATODAY.com (emphases mine):

Given that the first lady wore a headscarf when she visited a Jewish holy site in Jerusalem and a mantilla when she met with Pope Benedict XVI, we asked if Bush will be wearing some sort of abaya while she's in Saudi Arabia. "No," Sally McDonough, the first lady's spokeswoman, tells USA TODAY's David Jackson, adding: "they do not expect nor encourage it" of Western visitors.

Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright didn't wear head coverings when they visited Riyadh on official business, according to the photographs in our archive.

Update at 12:45 p.m. ET: McDonough says they have a nuanced policy when it comes to women who are visiting Saudi Arabia as part of the first lady's delegation.

"According to our team, during any activities on your own time - going to the mall, going out of the hotel for dinner, etc - women need to follow Saudi law and wear an Abaya. During official meetings, it is not necessary," she writes in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "As per guidance from Embassy on the ground, as members of the official traveling party, we will not need to wear any head scarves or abayas at any point."

Apparently at some "point," First Lady Laura Bush felt the "need to wear" the abaya and even to post the photo at the White House web site. In my book, that "need" is called dhimmitude.

Cyberwarfare

A prince should therefore have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study but war and it organization and discipline, for that is the only art that is necessary to one who commands. Nichollo Machiavelli.

I don't really like Machiavelli, but some of his ideas make me think really. If our Armies are aimed at defending citizens against foreign dangers and police corps at defending them against interior/inner dangers, the Prince (nowadays the Government/politicians) should be modernizing it to achieve its goals.

Well, today we have known first that the prosecutor has asked for two out of six of them unconditional prison for recruiting on-line people to carry out jihadi acts on foreign places (mainly, Iraq) and secondly, that the cell had connection with another cell detained in Denmark and with Bouchaid Macher, the accused of the Casablanca bombings against Spanish interests in 2004, now detained in Morocco.

Shari'a Law, Treason, and The Survival of the West

THE QUESTION MIGHT BE ASKED: why would SANE’s president David Yerushalmi provide pro bono legal services to give Muslims a voice? The answer lies in the distinction between Islam as a personal religious faith and the religio-political ideology of traditional and authoritative Shari’a which has everything to do with the survival of the West.

The question has been asked of me by good and serious men: Why would I have undertaken to represent ABG Films, and done so pro bono, to give voice to moderate Muslims? The question appears, and I underscore appears, to take on greater import in light of SANE’s sponsorship of our Mapping Shari’a in America project and our call that historical, traditional and authoritative Shari’a amounts to a violation of 18 USC 2385, the text and discussion of which is below. So, let me begin by explaining my reasons for taking on the case of freeing the documentary “Islam vs. Islamists” from those who would suppress it and explain why it is a fit with SANE’s work.

To begin, the men behind ABG Films, Frank Gaffney, Alex Alexiev and Martyn Burke, are serious, dedicated film makers seeking to establish a discussion about the growing problem of violence and intimidation within the Muslim communities of the West. This is work we certainly support. Their motivation of course includes protecting those patriotic and westernized Muslims who call America their home and desire nothing more than to live peaceful and prosperous lives as fully committed Americans.

When I read about the controversy surrounding the film and understood that the PC Elite had effectively joined hands with those forces and institutions in the Muslim world which seek to impose traditional Shari’a (loosely understood as Islamic law since it also includes what in the West we would term customs and even preferences) as the sole criteria for what a Muslim can do and believe, I decided to offer my services as my contribution to the effort to make it possible for the patriotic Muslim voices of the West to be heard.

And the reason is because they should be heard.

American Muslims who fully reject traditional Shari’a as an all encompassing binding law and political ideology and seek to pray and raise their families peacefully and as fully committed Americans deserve that chance like all Americans. Shari’a, as it is taught in the five authoritative legal schools (4 Sunni and one Shia) and propagated most effectively by the Wahhabis of the Gulf States, notably Saudi Arabia, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, demands a political-military voice as much as a religious one – and, indeed, the Shari’a-driven war is as forcefully directed against the fully Westernized Muslims as apostates as against the rest of us as infidels. (We speak of five specific schools because there have been more than five throughout Islam’s history; some of which are no longer extant as viable schools and others which exist but are marginal with very few adherents.)

For that reason I chose to lend my legal skills and effort to the battle to free the film for a full distribution in the near term. Thankfully, we were successful and the “Second Hour”, known as “Muslims against Jihad” has already been featured on Fox News in a discussion format with my clients several times and the main film “Islam vs. Islamists” will be airing on Oregon Public Broadcasting in August and quite possibly across the country soon thereafter. A DVD deal is already in the works with a major distributor.

This film “project” was not and is not in any way contrary to our work here at SANE and our Mapping Shari’a project. In fact, they are complimentary. In both our Mapping Shari’a project and in our effort to fully expose traditional and authoritative Shari’a as the most serious contemporary threat to America’s safety, we recognize that the threat arises out of traditional Shari’a’s demand to monopolize the Muslim — his world, his national affiliation, and even his very patriotism.

It is this Shari’a — a fully developed religio-political ideology — that is used by the “traditionalists” to attack the patriotic and Westernized “moderate” Muslims as “not real Muslims”. It is our committed position that all Americans should stand in solidarity with any American Muslim who wishes to embrace Islam as a purely religious faith — practicing the Five Pillars (commitment to monotheism; prayer; charity; fasting; and pilgrimage) — as a committed American and who rejects traditional Shari’a which demands to control and not merely to inform the entire life of the Muslim, including his attitude about and relations toward his country.

Our effort to fully expose the insidiousness of the “traditionalists” or what we term the “Shari’a-faithful” can best be explained by examining the teaching of Shari’a from the perspective of treason. Today, no serious scholar of Shari’a would deny that the goal of Islam per Shari’a (again, as articulated by the five authoritative schools) is the establishment of a world wide Caliphate ruled according to Allah’s perfect law, the Shari’a. That is simply too fundamental a concept over which to quibble.

Further, all five authoritative schools of Shari’a have also codified that Jihad as war is part of that goal. It is true that a host of issues abound around this question of Jihad, such as the notion of offensive war versus defensive; who is authorized to call for Jihad; is it a collective obligation or an individual one; what kind of tactics may be employed in this war, who are legal targets of violence, and others. But one thing is agreed between the legal schools: if war is the only viable alternative to conquering the land of the infidels, if the ratio of the forces of the infidel aligned against the Muslims are not beyond the prescribed limit, if such a war would be good for the Muslim Umma or people, and if a recognized Muslim leader calls for such a war, then war it must be.

What that means of course is, that given Shari’a as it exists today and as it has existed for over 1000 years, adherents of authoritative Shari’a accept the notion of war to overthrow the US government and other Western nations given the right conditions. And, of course, we see what seems to be a never ending stream of Jihadists fully committed to this goal, which suggests that there is at least a consensus among some Muslims that the conditions have been met for war.

Now, read existing US law as codified in Title 18 (the federal criminal code), Section 2385:

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof —

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

This of course is the Smith Act of 1940, as amended. The Supreme Court has had two occasions to review cases prosecuted under the Smith Act. In the first case, Dennis v. US, 341 U.S.494 (1951), the Court heard appeals from Communist Party leaders who had been convicted of violating the Smith Act and whose conviction had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court examined the First Amendment and other constitutional challenges, was unpersuaded, upheld the statute as constitutional, and affirmed the convictions.

The second time the Court took a look at the Smith Act was six years later in the case of Yates v. US, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). By this time, however, the Court was now under the spell of Chief Justice Earl Warren and the other liberal Justices of the time. They had already tested their mettle in Brown v. Board of Education some three years earlier. The question might have been reasonably asked, would the Court sustain the legislation in the face of a First Amendment challenge and effectively overrule Dennis?

The Court delivered its answer by not even addressing the First Amendment issue. What the Court did do was to limit the Smith Act to cases where the advocacy for the overthrow of the government was more than merely theoretical and to require a real nexus between the advocacy and some action that was being urged to achieve the treasonous goal.

Now, if we were to take into consideration that the Jihadists who cite Shari’a do so to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, one might well argue that this alone satisfies the condition under the Smith Act for a criminal conviction even under the Yates holding. The argument is fairly straightforward.

The Jihadist, following Shari’a, teaches that the purpose of Islam is the submission of the world to Allah’s will as expressed in his perfect law, the Shari’a. Further, anyone who teaches that the Muslim must be faithful and adhere to the traditional and authoritative Shari’a is advocating in effect precisely the same thing. Jihad, which most certainly includes the use and the advocacy of the use of violence in the effort to overthrow the infidel government, is an obligation on the Muslim, either as part of the collective or as an individual. By virtue of the fact that this is a religious instruction and understood to be a call to action — to live by the Shari’a fully and faithfully — and not merely some theoretical theological or political discussion, the call to observe traditional and authoritative Shari’a is the call to arms in a clear and decisive way.

This definitely supports of the propositions by Pastorius in his article, Advocating Sharia is an Act of Sedition. This is a serious issue, and democracies around the world are going to have to deal with it sooner or later, formally and legally. Sooner would be better.

By the way, the author of the article, David Yerushalmi, is writing for SANE, which has something called The Mapping Sharia Project. If you go to their site you can get on their email update list. They're doing some interesting stuff.

Monday, October 29, 2007

101st Fighting Keyboardists

I came across these folks and thought they had a great logo. And they seem to me to be our allies in this fight, and they have a good sense of humor besides. This article tells a little about the logo and why they adopted the chicken hawk as their mascot (it's the largest of its family, it defends its territory, and it feeds on chickens).

They have an impressive blogroll, and many of these sites may be resources for us. I noticed our own Atlas Shrugs and The Gathering Storm are on the list.

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Moran Atias - TYRANT

IBA Quote of the Week.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~